About Me

Name: C-Hayes
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

While You Were Out...Part 2

Posted by C-Hayes on Monday, September 24, 2007 7:03:12 PM
1) Governor Deval Patrick embarrassed not only Massachusetts but the entire country while presiding over 9/11 memorial ceremonies in Massachusetts - calling the September 11 attacks "a failure of human understanding."  More from the Boston Globe:

"Presiding over the state's memorial ceremonies for the first time, Patrick on Tuesday morning called the events of Sept. 11, 2001, 'a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States.'

"'But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other,' he said. 'It seems to me that lesson [of] that morning is something that we must carry with us every day.'"


"Mean"?  "Nasty"?  "Bitter"?  Manly words, indeed.

How about "savage"?  "Brutal"?  "Unforgivable"?  "Incomprehensible"?

The bigger question, though, is why Patrick felt the need to inject his opinion (he says "it seems to me") at a memorial service for 9/11 victims.  Why couldn't he just pray, reflect, remember, and be done with it?  People still in mourning from that day do not want to hear about our failure to love terrorists.

(By the way, why is that Patrick has to "fend off" questions from critics, rather than "answer" them?  Why is that Republican leaders are "seizing" on his comments rather than "responding to" them?  But the media doesn't tilt liberal.  No it does not.)

Fortunately for Patrick, talk radio and local media came to his rescue.  Brian Maloney reports that "Patrick gave jerky non-answers after being repeatedly pressed by callers on the 9-11 remarks and [WTKK talk show host Jim] Braude banned further calls on the subject. Disgusting."

Disgusting indeed.

Not so fortunate for Patrick was the attention the story received from some national media.  Michelle Malkin called him a "9/10 person."   But perhaps the most biting criticism came from the inimitable Mark Steyn (emphasis mine):

"Why do radical imams seek to convert young Canadian, British and even American men and women in their late teens and twenties? Because they understand that when you raise a generation in the great wobbling blancmange of Deval Patrick cultural relativism – nothing is any better or any worse than anything else; if people are 'mean and nasty' to us, it’s only because we didn’t sing enough Barney the Dinosaur songs at them – in such a world a certain percentage of its youth will have a great gaping hole where their sense of identity should be. And into that hole you can pour something fierce and primal and implacable."

When "nothing is any better or any worse than anything else," you get 9/11.  When the cultural and moral relativism promoted and adored by liberal members of government, academia, and the press fosters an "anything goes" environment...well, literally, "anything goes."

It shouldn't take another 9/11 to figure out why this mentality is dangerous for America and the world.

2) Illegal immigration advocates suffered a blow back in August when the cause's poster woman, "immigration activist" Elvira Arellano, was arrested in Los Angeles after eluding deportation authorities for 10 years, most recently spending the last year in sanctuary at a Chicago church.

From the CBS piece (emphasis mine):

"'We are sad, but at the same time we are angry,' said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with her. 'How dare they arrest this woman?'"

This woman has evaded the law for 10 years, and the response from "immigration activists" is of pure indignation.  "How dare they arrest this woman" - umm, maybe because she's illegal!  And it would've happened sooner without ridiculous "sanctuary" policies which permit this woman to continue to live in defiance of the country she professes she wants to be a part of.

The indignation.

Of course, after coming into the country illegally, she committed more crimes:

"Arellano came to Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

"She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August.

"She sought refuge at the storefront church on Chicago's West Side Aug. 15, 2006. She had not left the church property until deciding to be driven to Los Angeles..."

Any sob stories on the person whose Social Security Number Arellano stole?

Though the media would want you to believe otherwise, a Rasmussen poll conducted August 18 indicates that Americans are flat-out fed up with illegal immigration, and want the arrest and deportation of Arellano to be the beginning of what I would call "comprehensive illegal immigration reform" - instead of using Arellano as an example of "we're doing something" while continuing to do nothing.

Tammy Bruce highlights:

"A new Rasmussen poll illustrates that Americans had have enough of the social, cultural and economic chaos brought by illegal aliens. Super majorities favor a cut of federal funding to 'Sanctuary Cities' as well as ID cards and tracking for 'foreign visitors' in general, and we want that damn physical fence. Not a virtual one of cameras, and motion detectors. We want a real F-E-N-C-E. Which, btw, would not only make it more difficult for illegals to get into the country, it would also make slipping across the border back into Mexico, by fleeing mass murder suspects as an example, a tad more difficult as well."

Finally, Debbie Schlussel weighs in - finally glad to be proven wrong!

3) Lastly, what I've read in the past couple months:

Treason by Ann Coulter - in preparation for her new book coming out in October!
Winning the Race - Beyond the Crisis in Black America by John McWhorter
Uncle Sam's Plantation by Star Parker
It Takes A Family - Conservatism and the Common Good by Rick Santorum
Porn Generation by Ben Shapiro

All good reads.  I think Star Parker's was the best - it was part biography, part plan-of-action for the black community.  McWhorter's was quite dense and academic, so, if you want to tackle it, be prepared to use a highlighter. 

I'm also co-running a book club, starting in October.  Our first book is The Great Gatsby, so clearly not all books will have a political leaning.  But I will pick the book come November, and can essentially pick anything I want (and I would LOVE to force people to read something conservative!  But I may not do that just yet...) - I would love to hear any suggestions!

That may be it for the "While You Were Out" series...it's difficult to make events relevant that happened weeks, or even months, ago.  But if I can think of something I feel worthwhile to write about, you can be sure I will write about it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

While You Were Out...Part 1

Posted by C-Hayes on Monday, September 17, 2007 7:45:51 PM
It's been a while since I've updated...a little over a month. So here's what's been happening! (with more posts to follow):
 
1) Fred Thompson entered the presidential race.
 
Almost instantly, debates centered around Thompson's timing. Was the timing too soon? Too early? Perfect timing?
 
Kathleen Parker makes some valid points in arguing for the Thompson announcement:

"...Thompson at least gave commentators something new to talk about. Was it a mistake to go on Leno instead of the debate, they wondered? And, did he sign on too late, they speculated? Is he a team player?
 
"Thompson must have chuckled all the way to Iowa. Too late for what? Most Americans still don't know who's running and don't share the punditry's obsession with quantifying who's up and who's down every 24-hour cycle. If they're watching television, they're more likely watching Leno, who averaged 5.9 million viewers in 2006, instead of the presidential debates, which tend to draw between 1 million and 2 million viewers, according to Variety."

While Salon lets you know that Fred Thompson is basically stupid, and anyone in Red State America who falls for his act is at least just as stupid (mischaracterizing all Republican candidates in the process):

"But anybody who mistakes [Thompson's] nascent campaign for a fluke or a flight of fancy just doesn't understand America as well as Freddie Thompson does. Set Thompson up against the current Republican field and you'll get the idea. There is Willard Mitt Romney, a cyborg-like ex-governor, who is tough to take at face value, if only because he keeps changing his mind so he can say the right thing. There is Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, an odd and commanding New Yorker with a strange accent and a pro-choice record, who doesn't actually spend much time campaigning. There is John Sidney McCain III, a war hero with no money and an immigration problem, who everyone seems to think is yesterday's news. And there is Michael Dale Huckabee, a funny former governor and Baptist preacher, who is still struggling to convince people he can stare down bin Laden.

"Add Thompson's 6-foot, 5-inch frame to the mix, and his advantage is clear. He is new to the game, and unlike all these politicians who try so hard, he is just like you. He even says so on the stump. 'Let's get right to the chase,' he told a crowd in Sioux City...'The main question that you have a right to know from me is why I'm running for president. And the answer is pretty simple. I'm just like you are.'

"If this sounds hokey, that's beside the point. If it sounds hypocritical, coming from a rich former lobbyist and actor who lives in one of the nation's toniest towns, McLean, Va., the crowds in Iowa didn't seem to notice. In fact, they ate it up. Presidential campaigns are often spoken of as contests of ideas, but more often they play out as contests of charisma. Voters don't choose the song as much as they choose the singer. No one would have listened to 'Baby One More Time' if Britney Spears didn't look like Britney Spears. "...

Right - we're the stupid ones, and Salon compares Fred Thompson to Britney Spears...

While there are some on the right who do believe that Thompson waited too late and likely insulted New Hampshire voters by announcing his candidacy on the Tonight Show instead of participating in a Republican debate (Jonah Goldberg suspects this may be the case, and Monica Crowley - if I remember right - said as much on her radio talk show), I tend to agree with Parker on this one.

Yes, Thompson announced his candidacy much later than other candidates.  But it's still early!  Only the Dick Morrises of the world are obsessed with presidential elections at this stage.  The average American now knows that Fred Thompson is running for President...

...but do they know that Mike Huckabee is?  Sam Brownback?  Anyone outside the big three (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) on the Democrat side?

Probably not.

So Thompson is second in the polls, according to the Real Clear Politics average.  What's really wrong with that, at this stage?

2) That MoveOn.org ad.

I'm not even going to link to the ad.  It's that disgusting.

Lorie Byrd poses the obvious question:

"So, MoveOn.org, in effect, calls a highly respected general who was confirmed 81-0 by the U.S. Senate a traitor, but we can't question their patriotism?"

We certainly can.  And we will.

But not just the patriotism of MoveOn.org should be questioned.  The site hosted a "town hall" debate for 7 Democrat presidential candidates.  If you can bear to listen to some of the excerpts, do you think they sound patriotic?  Some thoughts:

- John Edwards crediting MoveOn.org with "accomplishing amazing things" like electing Democrats.  He then talks about engaging the Iranians and the Syrians.

- Joe Biden lying when he says everyone agrees that there's no military solution in Iraq (CNN headlines this too - of course, General Petraeus and the President have said that a political solution must ACCOMPANY a military solution)

- Dennis Kucinich blaming the United States for fueling an "insurgency"

- Bill Richardson planning a "security conference" with what amounts to practically the entire Middle East (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, and Syria), then attempting to convince both Iran and Syria that a stable Iraq is good for them

- Hillary Clinton pushing to pass legislation recommending the withdrawal (sorry, "redeployment") of troops within 90 days...she's been attempting to get this legislation passed for 2 years...

...so, would she still wait the 90 days, then?

She also wants to cap troop amounts and "convene an international conference" including Syria and Iran - something she has long advocated...

...huh?  Isn't that "irresponsible and frankly naive"?

- Barack Obama repeats the Joe Biden lie.  He wanted to remove combat troops starting in May - unfortunately for him, we increased troops and the surge started working (even Hillary Clinton admits as much!).

Who among them said "winning the war"?

Oh, right - that's bad for Democrats.

And TERRIBLE for MoveOn.org.

3) Illegals learn their rights - in Boston, of course...

The sob story:

"One steamy night last week in Springfield, a handful of immigrants here illegally from Mexico and Honduras gathered in the sparse kitchen of a tiny apartment. They sat on nylon folding chairs facing a laptop computer that Joel Rodriguez, a trainer for the Alliance to Develop Power, had placed at the edge of the sink.

"Their faces tense, they watched a DVD in Spanish that simulated encounters between immigrants and federal officials and police. In one scene, two men wearing jackets emblazoned with 'police' and 'ICE' pounded on the door, shattering a couple's morning coffee.

"The couple froze. Through the closed door, the father asked to see the warrant, which the agent slipped underneath the door. After reading the warrant, the father returned it, saying it did not list his name. Rebuffed, the agents left.

"After the video, Rodriguez told the immigrants that they should not lie or carry false documents, or run away.

"'The best thing you can do is stay silent,' or ask for a lawyer, he said."

Well, "handful" sounds pretty small - almost insignficant, doesn't it?  And "nylon folding chairs" - that must've been uncomfortable...

...and to have to place the laptop at the edge of the sink???

At least the DVD was available in Spanish.

Here's a description of Rodriguez's Alliance to Develop Power, with another description of a "jarring raid":

"The Alliance to Develop Power, a wide-ranging nonprofit in Springfield involved in affordable housing, union organization, and services for US citizens and immigrants, began training in June after a raid jarred the community.

According to the alliance, federal agents arrived to deport one illegal immigrant but also detained four others, including a couple from Mexico who were driving to pick up their son, who was with baby sitter."

"...who was with baby sitter"?  Does the Boston Globe employ illegals to write their stories?  It doesn't appear that "must know English" is a requirement for the Globe staff.

Thank goodness illegal immigration is still an important issue for Republicans - as if we needed the San Diego Union-Tribune to tell us. 

Don't worry, though - the paper will still find room for some Republican-bashing:

"But while Congress has taken a hiatus from active immigration reform, GOP legislators who supported the Senate bill are still being assailed by constituents, and state-level anti-immigration legislation has been popping up across the country since the bill failed."...

Republicans are always so negative - "assailing" each other, aren't they?  And I wonder if that "anti-immigration legislation" is directed at illegals...

...just a guess.


That's Part 1!  More to come...soon!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Made the Bridge Collapse

Posted by C-Hayes on Thursday, August 09, 2007 3:35:38 PM
Did you know that the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota was George Bush's fault?

If you listen to the mainstream media, then you probably did know.

BUT...

...did you know that he also orchestrated the collapse to make Somalian Muslims living in the area uncomfortable?

Probably not.

Thankfully, the Chicago Sun-Times clues us in (via Newsbusters):

"...the collapse was something Somalis never expected to witness in their new homeland. And it has some wondering if the American government has misplaced its priorities by ignoring a decaying national infrastructure in favor of its costly foreign policy.

"'Instead of building bridges, they spent more on invading countries,' said Abbi Osman, a young Somali who came to Minnesota four years ago and was watching buddies play dominoes Tuesday in a Somali coffee shop. 'They are investing in the wrong places.'

"The collapse too adds to uneasy feelings among Somalis who say they have felt a federal backlash since Sept. 11, 2001 not only because of their Muslim faith but also because Somalia has been accused of harboring terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden. The bridge collapse has added jitters for Somalis who in recent years regrouped and rallied around one another."

Fund bridges - not war. The next catchy slogan of the Left.

I wonder what "federal backlash" these Somali Muslims have felt since coming to the United States - since they fled a country which doesn't even have a central government, and hasn't for some time. And one of their Congressmen is Muslim - Keith Ellison.

Why doesn't the author of this piece, E. A. Torriero, specify the federal backlash these Muslims have felt since September 11th? Have they been denied the freedom to practice their religion? Are they safer here than they are in Somalia?

Or did this bridge collapse coincidentally happen near a concentrated Muslim population?

The mainstream media would have you think a conspiracy is afoot.

Don't believe the hype.

Meanwhile, a sixth body has been recovered. Please pray for all the affected families of this tragedy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should Radical Islamists Fear the Chinese?

Posted by C-Hayes on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 4:16:51 PM
Fascinating speculation from the Asia Times Online (via Laura Ingraham's website):

"...China may be for the 21st century what Europe was during the 8th-11th centuries, and America has been during the past 200 years: the natural ground for mass evangelization. If this occurs, the world will change beyond our capacity to recognize it. Islam might defeat the western Europeans, simply by replacing their diminishing numbers with immigrants, but it will crumble beneath the challenge from the East."

I honestly haven't heard this anywhere until now - has anyone else?

Naturally, the argument that Islam is steadily replacing Christianity in Western Europe is a popular one, perhaps made most convincingly by Mark Steyn in his America Alone.

But that Christianity would subsequently supplant Islam?  Haven't heard that before...

The article goes on to contrast, somewhat fantastically, the differences between Islam and Christianity in China:

"...Islam in China remains the religion of the economic losers, whose geographic remoteness isolates them from the economic transformation on the coasts. Christianity, by contrast, has burgeoned among the new middle class in China's cities, where the greatest wealth and productivity are concentrated. Islam has a thousand-year presence in China and has grown by natural increase rather than conversion; evangelical Protestantism had almost no adherents in China a generation ago."

Upon further investigation, I see that, back in 2004, the BBC commented on the rise of Christianity in China, despite regular condemnation:

"According to Mr. Wong [parliamentary officer for the Jubilee campaign], the number of Christians in China has continued to rise, exacerbating this perceived threat [that Communists feel,] and causing the authorities to clamp down still further on unregistered churches.


"The perception that China's Christians have close links with the West adds to their plight, Mr Wong said....


"Christianity is not actually banned in China. In fact, according to the constitution, 'citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.'


"Beijing backed up that statement in 1997, saying that 'In China, no one is to be punished due to their religious belief.'
 

"But human rights groups and Christians say that the reality is different.

"'They say you can believe, but you can't evangelise,' Mr Xu said. "But that is a natural act for Christians. The bible commands us to preach the gospel.'"
 
"...'Despite all the persecution and suffering, God is calling more and more people in China,' he said."

And Allah, apparently, is not.

Sino-American relations have dramatically improved since 9/11, and this can only be seen as good news.  If the religion of liberation continues to spread as quickly as this Asia Times piece would indicate, we could potentially develop a strong ally in China.

China - a strong American ally?

Who knew?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Democrats Are Despicable

Posted by C-Hayes on Saturday, August 04, 2007 4:37:12 PM
Of course there are countless reasons why Democrats are despicable.  But the number one reason has to be the exploitation of tragedy for potential political gain. 

It's ugly and it has to stop...

...or, maybe it doesn't have to stop.  The ugliness reveals the Democrats' true nature.

Is it sad to predict that the Left in this country would use the Minneapolis bridge collapse tragedy to attack the Bush administration?

Yes.  But, maybe we should be thankful for their hate.  Then maybe people won't make the mistake of voting Democrats into office.

This transcript from Rush Limbaugh got my blood boiling.  But Rush is the best at showing why the Democrats are wrong about everything.  Think higher taxes would've prevented this tragedy, freeing up more money to spend on infrastructure?  Think if less money was allocated to defense spending, this collapse would've been prevented?  Think the print media in this country isn't decidedly liberal?

Think again.

From the transcript (my emphasis):

"This is one of these classic events that is custom-made for the Drive-By Media.  'The country is falling apart.  Bush spending too much in Iraq.  Not paying enough attention to what's happening at home.'  Meanwhile, all these people complaining about the defense budget taking away money.  Do you know that Minnesota was running, it's either this year or last, a $2.1 billion surplus?  These states are running surpluses.  Most of these states are awash in money.  As I have told you countless times, they have more money than they know what to do with, and they still want to raise your taxes, federal government, too.  The state of Minnesota is building a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings, rather than fix the bridges.  How is that the fault of our being in Iraq?  It's not.  The Drive-By Media had hardly taken a breath before they turned the cars around to blame Bush and Republicans in general for the bridge collapse.  Senator Patty Murray said that Bush has not supported Democrat efforts to increase spending on critical infrastructure.  So they immediately turn this into a 'let's increase taxes' issue.  This has to stop.  They have enough money....

"...The Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, are the only people that care about roads and bridges.  The rest of us, we never have to drive on those roads and bridges.  It's only liberal Democrats have to ride on the bridges.  By the way, 600,000 bridges in this country, one of them goes down, 'Country's falling apart because we're in Iraq.'  It's absurd, but it's a perfect template and a perfect action line for our buddies in the Drive-By Media.  In 2005, for all these people saying that we spend too much in the military, the federal budget in 2005 was 2.47 trillion.  The defense budget that year was 400 billion.  Over 60% of the federal budget is spent on entitlement programs.  Good old Soc. Security, good old Medicare, good old Medicaid, good old SCHIP program, with a P.  They ought to change it, get the health care for the little children out there.  Defense spending as a percentage of the total federal budget has been declining since the 1960s."

"...Now, Nick Coleman at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and I got the story here, says that this collapse of the bridge would never have happened if it wasn't for the governor, Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, and his refusal to raise taxes.  This is in the Minneapolis paper, Star Tribune.  The reason this bridge collapsed is because he wouldn't raise taxes.  

"Here's a quote from the story.  'For half a dozen years, the motto of state government and particularly that of Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been No New Taxes. It's been popular with a lot of voters and it has mostly prevailed. So much so that Pawlenty vetoed a 5-cent gas tax increase - the first in 20 years - last spring and millions were lost that might have gone to road repair. And yes, it would have fallen...'  Stick with me on this, folks.  'Yes, it would have fallen even if the gas tax had gone through, because we are years behind a dangerous curve when it comes to the replacement of infrastructure that everyone but wingnuts in coonskin caps agree is one of the basic duties of government.'  What Nick Coleman, the brilliant Nick Coleman fails to point out here that there was no need for a tax increase when Pawlenty vetoed the gas tax increase.  At the time, when Tim Pawlenty vetoed this five-cent gas tax increase, the state of Minnesota had a $2.1 billion budget surplus.  The surplus comes from what?  It certainly doesn't come from government not spending.  The surplus comes from overtaxation.  That's the case in almost, not all, but almost every state out there.  They've got gobs of money, folks."

...and the Dems are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?  Can you imagine if we didn't hear information like this from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for the sake of "fairness?"

Well, there's nothing fair about exploitation.  And Rush points that out brilliantly.

Check out the crazies at the Daily Kos for proof of the Left's insensibilty, with predictable invocations of war spending, tax cuts for the rich, Hurricane Katrina, and "who needs terrorism"...

Keep talking, Lefties.  Your true colors are beginning to shine...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

re: Front Page News

Posted by C-Hayes on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:34:30 PM
***UPDATE 5*** (12:30PM, 8/1) 

Michelle Malkin remains the only vigilant mainstream voice - here she is in today's New York Post.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Era of You Tube

Posted by C-Hayes on Friday, July 27, 2007 2:42:43 PM
Kathleen Parker on the ridiculousness of the YouTube debate:

"Some questions were serious, including one about health care for illegal immigrants and another about Iraq — but too many of the 39 were beyond silly.


"YouTube invites silliness, which is part of its appeal, but inviting so-called 'ordinary Americans' to film themselves posing questions to presidential candidates does not advance democracy, no matter how much hoopla we manufacture.


"What anybody can do, anybody can do. Anyone can make a goofy video and ask a goofy question, but the man or woman intending to lead the free world should resist dignifying the charade."

Does anyone really trust CNN to sort out the questions, by the way?

Not that any politician would dare say they wouldn't participate in the debate and possibly offend the average American...

...well, at least, not any Democrat.

Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Colmes:

"...The Republican candidates, all of them, should be striving to describe in historic terms how they will change Washington, how they will change government, what they will do that is different. And they have to describe it so vividly that it gets past the elite news media. I don't see at the present time that level of clarity."

Check out the transcript - I think Kathleen Parker would agree with his assessment.

So would I.

Hopefully it's a matter of time before he announces his candidacy.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Front Page News...

Posted by C-Hayes on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:56:08 PM

***UPDATE 4*** (11:00AM EST, 7/31)

Second hostage confirmed dead - and South Korea is kinda mad:

"The South Korean Foreign Ministry confirmed that 29-year-old Shim Sung-min’s body had been found. The former information technology worker was volunteering with a South Korean church group on an aid mission to Afghanistan; 21 others remain captive.


"'The government expresses deep condolences to his family,' Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho Hee-yong said. 'We cannot contain our anger at this merciless killing and strongly condemn this.'"

Who thinks the Taliban will care about a "strong condemnation"?

And not a peep that I can find from the United States.

From the Taliban commanders:

"'If the Kabul government does not release the Taliban prisoners, then we will kill after 12 o'clock — we are going to kill Korean hostages...It might be a man or a woman... It might be one. It might be two, four. It might be all of them."'

This is the DEFINTION of terrorism - and in this case, it's winning.

Who will stand up to the Taliban?  And who will pay attention?


***UPDATE 3*** (2:35PM EST, 7/30)

Second hostage dead?

"A purported Taliban spokesman claimed the hardline militia killed a second Korean hostage Monday because Afghanistan failed to release insurgents from prisons. Government officials said they hadn't recovered the body and couldn't confirm the claim.

"Militant spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi said senior Taliban leaders decided to kill the male captive because the government had not come through on promises to release Taliban prisoners.

"'The Kabul and Korean governments are lying and cheating. They did not meet their promise of releasing Taliban prisoners,' Ahmadi, who claims to speak for the Taliban, said by phone from an undisclosed location. 'The Taliban warns the government if the Afghan government won't release Taliban prisoners then at any time the Taliban could kill another Korean hostage.'"

Don't worry, though - CNN is covering Michael Vick's dogfighting story, and Al Gore's son's marijuana case. 

MSNBC thankfully is headlining - story here.

 
***UPDATE 2*** (11:45AM EST, 7/25)

Body found - riddled with bullets:

"The bullet-riddled body of a South Korean hostage was found by police Wednesday in central Afghanistan after a purported Taliban spokesman said the militants had killed one of the captives.


"The male victim had 10 bullet holes in his head, chest and stomach, and was discovered in the Mushaki area of Qarabagh district in Ghazni province, said police officer Abdul Rahman.


"The Taliban spokesman said earlier that the hostage was was killed because Afghan authorities hadn't met their demands to release other militants from prison."

Will the U.S. publicly condemn this atrocity?

Are we awake yet?

***UPDATE*** (10:15AM EST, 7/25)

Now, it's front page news.

Why?  The Taliban is reporting one of the hostages is dead:

"Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousif Ahmadi said the man had been killed because Taliban demands -- which included a prisoner release and withdrawal of South Korean troops from the country -- hadn't been met.


"Yousif told CNN it was probable that the remaining hostages would be killed by 1 a.m. Thursday local time (2030 GMT) if the demands weren't met.


"Khawaja Mohammad Siddiqi, the district governor of Qara Bagh, said the executed hostage had been very ill and could not be moved to hospital.


"Siddiqi said the Taliban were holding the remaining Korean hostages in three different locations.

"The 23 church volunteers -- 18 women and five men -- were seized on the main road south from Kabul last week."

That's right - last week.  And we're just hearing about it now...

Updates, I'm sure, to follow...

***ORIGINAL POSTING***

At the time of this posting... 

FOX News has Lindsay Lohan on its front page.

CNN has YouTube questioners from last night's debate.

The New York Times has Alberto Gonzales.

MSNBC has a story about air controllers.

The LA Times has...Lindsay Lohan.

CBS News has NBA Commissioner David Stern.

ABC News has...NBA Commissioner David Stern.

WHY DOES NOBODY HAVE THIS STORY??? - 23 South Korean Christians face death at the hands of the Taliban, and nobody is paying attention?

This is disgraceful...

Here was the first proclamation from the Taliban:

"In the largest abduction of foreigners since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, several dozen fighters kidnapped the South Koreans at gunpoint from a bus in Ghazni province on Thursday, said Ali Shah Ahmadzai, the provincial police chief.


"'They have got until tomorrow [Saturday] at noon to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, or otherwise we will kill the 18 Koreans,' Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, who says he speaks for the Taliban, told the Associated Press on a satellite telephone from an undisclosed location. 'Right now, they are safe and sound.'"

The threat of death has been delayed, but now the Taliban is asking for an exchange of 8 South Korean hostages for 8 rebel jihadists.

Negotiating with terrorists only lends them credibility.

The South Koreans are scheduled to be put to death tonight.

Now can we make this front page news?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

See Something...Say Something?

Posted by C-Hayes on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:46:39 AM
Rich Lowry on the Democrats' blocking the King Amendment:

"If the King amendment doesn’t make it into law, people in such agonizing situations will have to worry not just about being called racist, but about being sued if their suspicions prove unfounded. The King amendment garnered 304 votes in the House and 57 in the Senate, but a majority of Democrats voted against it in both houses, and now key Democrats are trying to keep it out of a House-Senate conference committee.

"The Democrats oppose fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bush’s electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects, and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court."

Here are the 39 Dems who voted against it in the Senate - one of them NOT being Hillary Clinton...

...would you ever want to be to the left of Hillary on any issue?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq and Media Deception

Posted by C-Hayes on Monday, July 23, 2007 9:08:18 AM
Check out this mind-blowing post from Atlas Shrugs on the statistics of the Iraq War - reprinted here in full (while there, check out the rest of her intelligent site):

"You are only as good as your information. Your opinions should be formed by what you know and what you don't know. It is impossible to make solid assessments, informed opinions if your intel is garbage. And that's what the mainstream media delivers to your brain everyday, garbage.

"Bert Brady sent this on to me.

"Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003 through now, we have lost a total of 3,140 soldiers. As tragic as the loss of any soldier is, consider this: below is a list of deaths of soldiers while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004: 

FIGURES ARE CONFIRMED ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITE

1980      2,392

1981      2,380

1982     2,319

1983     2,465

1984     1,999

1985     2,252

1986     1,984

1987     1,983

1988     1,819

1989     1,636

1990     1,507

1991     1,787

1992     1,293

1993     1,213

1994     1,075

1995     1,040

1996        974

1997        817

1998        827

1999        796

2000       758

2001       891

2002       999

2003    1,410      534*

2004    1,887      900*

2005       919*

2006      920*

* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

"Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Clinton's presidency? Were we at war?

"Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? I was. Especially when I saw that in 1980, when Carter was in office, there were 2,392 U.S. military fatalities.

"What this clearly indicates is the media (and some liberal politicians) pick and choose the facts.

"Another fact the media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. The latest census shows the following:

European descent (white)    69.12%

Hispanic                                  12.5%

African American (Black)     12.3%

Asian                                         3.7%

Native American                    1.0%

Other                                        2.6%

Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are: 

European decent (white)    74.31%

Hispanic                                  10.74%

African American (Black)     9.67%

Asian                                        1.81%

Native American                    1.09%

Other                                        2.33% 

Please, don't just take my word, see for yourself:

Click here: Iraq Coalition Casualties    

Click here: Gateway Pundit: US Lost More Soldiers Annually Under Clinton Than in Iraq     

Click here: Military Casualty Information"


WOW - is anyone else as shocked as I am?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christians Fleeing Middle East

Posted by C-Hayes on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:49:38 PM
Newsweek reports:

"Across the lands of the Bible, Christians...are abandoning their homes...'The flight of Christians out of these areas is similar to the hunt for Jews,' says Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-Italian author and expert on Islam, himself a Muslim. 'There is no better example of what will happen if this human tragedy in the Arab-Muslim world is allowed to continue.'...

"Nowhere is the exodus more extreme than in Iraq. Before the war, members of the Assyrian and Chaldean rites, along with smaller numbers of Armenians and others, constituted roughly 1.2 million of the country's 25 million people. Most sources agree that well over half of those Christians have fled the country now, and many or most of the rest have been internally displaced, but some estimates are far more drastic. According to the Roman Catholic relief organization Caritas, the number of Christians in Iraq had plummeted to 25,000 by last year."...

Debbie Schlussel points that the Islamic Muslim quoted likely had a forcible conversion in his family's history, because of his surname.  Check out her site for more insight.

Interestingly, a vicar quoted in the piece says that President Bush is doing nothing to protect his practicing of religion.  Do you believe this?  Debbie does:

"We've allowed our President to repeatedly gush over, comfort, and enable the princes and kings of the darkness--the rulers of Islamic nations and their co-conspiratorial imams on our shores."

The insinuation here is that life was better under Saddam for Christians - what a terrible, sobering thought...but, I think, all the more reason to fight.  It's what we owe Iraq. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Smack. Down.

Posted by C-Hayes on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:24:24 AM
Mychal Massie takes on Jesse Jackson, Jr., Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack (Hussein) Obama, and BET's Tavis Smiley in his latest for World Net Daily, "Why No Pardon for Compean and Ramos?"

Guess who wins.

He saves the final smackdown, however, for the President: "He is guilty...of loving Mexico more than America – the proof of which is clear in that he has not lifted a finger to help the heroic border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who are wasting away in prison, guilty only of protecting our sovereign borders from illegal drug smugglers."

Amen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

O'Beirne on Compean and Ramos

Posted by C-Hayes on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:24:51 PM
National Review's Washington Editor - and attorney -  Kate O'Beirne offers new insight (at least, to me) on the Border Patrol Agents case:

"The original indictment against the agents did not even include [a] federal gun charge; it was added to the indictment after the agents refused plea bargains under which they would have served about two years in jail. Prosecutors then charged the agents with discharging a firearm during the commission of a violent crime and argued that the charge carried a mandatory-minimum ten-year jail sentence. Without the gun charge, the agents' sentences for assault and the violation of [accused Mexican citizen Osbaldo Aldrete-] Davila's civil rights would have been far shorter.

"But the Washington Legal Foundation — in an amicus brief filed on behalf of the agents — argues that the prosecutors misapplied the mandatory-minimum provision, originally part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, because it was intended to deter criminals from carrying or using a gun in the commission of a violent crime or drug offense. They argue that it was not intended to be applicable to law-enforcement officers who 'use and carry' weapons in the performance of their duties. As the legislation's chief sponsor explained, the law was meant to 'persuade the man who is tempted to commit a federal felony to leave his gun at home.' Although the use of the gun statute in cases involving shootings by law-enforcement officers is not unprecedented, the brief argues that it has typically been reserved for 'extremely rare cases' of criminal behavior by rogue officers.

"Does the Bush administration support a broad use of the mandatory-minimum gun charge against law-enforcement officers who would routinely face ten-year sentences when a jury second-guesses their use of deadly force? Lawless law-enforcement officers shouldn't be treated better than other criminals, but they shouldn't be treated any worse simply because their job requires that they be armed."

Why hasn't this pardon happened yet?  Is there any motivation for any American citizen to become a Border Patrol Agent when this is the type of treatment you get - the law "misinterpreted" and twisted to bend towards an illegal drug-smuggling alien, and against someone trying to defend his country? 

Read up on Aldrete-Davila's illegal activities here.

Sign the petition to pardon these Border Patrol Agents here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush = Hitler

Posted by C-Hayes on Monday, July 16, 2007 2:21:31 PM
We've seen this comparison countless times in the media:

1) In 2004, the influential liberal site MoveOn.org featured a video which claimed: "What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003," Also, "the final two frames [of the video] include Hitler with his hand raised and then a shot of Bush with his hand up taking the oath of office."

2) on his HBO show "Real Time," Bill Maher compared Laura Bush to "Hitler's dog."

3) In 2003, CounterPunch actually argued that Bush doesn't stack up to Hitler:

"It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush Administration's fear mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels on the German people and their Weimar Republic are not at all out of line."

4) Also, the comparison passes for intelligent discourse in academia (see here and here, for starters)

There are countless other examples one could come up with that pass without much criticism in the mainstream media. But the newest examples needs closer examination...as it's not getting any.

Who picks up the story first when and up-and-coming Muslim U.S. Congressman compares Bush to Hitler?

Not the print media in the United States mind you - but the U.K.'s Telegraph:

"Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,' Mr Ellison said. 'After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.'

"To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because 'you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you'."

Who is the "they" Ellison refers to in that last sentence...Americans, maybe?

There was enough controversy surrounding Ellison before he even began his term when he argued for taking his oath of office on the Koran instead of the Bible. Then he complained about Tom Tancredo enjoying a cigar smoke in his own office (for which he apologized, through a hand-written memo).

But buying into the Bush = Hitler hysteria? And actually meaning it?

Are the people of Minnesota second-guessing themselves yet?

Not swearing his allegiance to the U.S. on the Bible should've been the first indication that this man should not be trusted to hold office.

This should be the LAST...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Top 10 Columnists

Posted by C-Hayes on Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:25:35 PM
My list of top-10 must-read columnists:

Honorable Mention: Brent Bozell.   Nobody watches the liberal media establishment more hawkishly than Bozell, whose Media Research Center is the largest media watchdog in America.  Besides taking on the usual suspects like ABC and CNN, Bozell bashes the likes of taxpayer-funded NPR and PBS and points out their continued ultra-liberal biases.

10. Debra J. Saunders.  It's a miracle this honest voice pens for one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, the San Francisco Chronicle.  Especially noteworthy among her columns are those detailing the horrific plight of America's most famous Border Patrol Agents, Ramos and Compean.  She also makes convincing arguments against illegal immigration, and challenges the prevailing "wisdom" of global warming among the liberal elite.  An absolute star in a bastion of leftist ideology.

9. Peggy Noonan.  Is anyone less afraid to speak her mind?  Her latest piece is a damning indictment of George Bush and his seeming apathy towards his base.  Clearly, she does not "toe the party line" and will strike down Republicans when they don't stick to conservative principles - a refreshing tactic that the Left would be wise to use.

8. Rich Lowry.  Not only a good columnist, but a fantastic substitute for the increasingly vapid Sean Hannity on FOX's "Hannity and Colmes."  Among his better pieces are those that comment on the culture, including the Virginia Tech Massacre, the Don Imus controversy, and, most recently, Michael Moore's film, "Sicko".

7. Melanie Phillips.  The only reliable news source I've encountered from the UK.  Londonistan is one of the most important books to be published in the last few years, and an absolute must-read.  Also, she fearlessly confronts radical Islam in the UK in a way nobody else in that country will, honestly naming the enemy and spelling out tactics to fight it.

6. Kate O'Beirne.  The ultimate antifeminist.  Check out Women Who Make the World Worse and discover why the feminist grab on education, sports, politics, and the culture has "wimpified" boys and weakened the cornerstone of American society, the family.

5. Star Parker.  This former self-proclaimed welfare cheat and race-hustler turned to God and discovered a world beyond living on the welfare dole.  Areas of expertise include commenting on black culture, working-class Americans, and the importance of limited government.

4. Ann Coulter.  Nobody strikes fear in the hearts of liberals more than Ann Coulter.  And nobody does with a better combination of humor and deadly accuracy.  The following excerpt is just a microcosm of Coulter's ability to unmask the Left's collective lunacy, this time exposing their immigration views:

"Apparently, my position on immigration is that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, inasmuch as this is billed as the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The jejune fact that we 'can't deport them all' is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens — and fast!

"I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

"We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is 'comprehensive murder reform.' It's not 'amnesty' — we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

"If it's 'impossible' to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy — he must know where they are!"

She's not a racist, jingoistic, intolerant homophobe.  She just speaks the truth.

3. Michelle Malkin.  Best blog on the Internet.  Provocative, insightful, and an absolute bulldog to boot.  Watch her regular appearances on "The O'Reilly Factor" with Kirsten Powers on Mondays, and her weekly wrap-ups on Fridays.  Also, watch what conservative media outlets cover on a daily basis - chances are, you'll see it on Michelle's site first.

2. Thomas Sowell.  Best recurring column in America is Sowell's "Random Thoughts."  Typical lucid observations include the following:

"Does anybody seriously believe that 'hate speech' prohibitions will be applied to Muslims demonizing Jews, to blacks demonizing whites, or to women demonizing men?"

And...

"The people who are scariest to me are the people who don't even know enough to realize how little they know."

1. Mark Steyn.  The most original, funniest, and most important columnist today.  Also, he's the writer of the most important book of recent memory, America Alone.  Nobody understands the threats of Islamic jihad better, and his book addresses a concept absent from American mainstream media: that of demography.  With radicalists multiplying at a much faster rate than those of us in the civilized West, our societies will be replaced faster than we can even realize, if current "replacement" rates persist.  Educate yourself, and read this book.

Comments?  Who are your favorite columnists?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »